Most folks do not have the mathematics in their knowledge base to consciously DO any deconvolution, even if it did improve their image! They might unknowingly use it if it were buried within a button selection in an application program.
"In optics and imaging, the term "deconvolution" is specifically used to refer to the process of reversing the optical distortion that takes place in an optical microscope, electron microscope, telescope, or other imaging instrument, thus creating clearer images. It is usually done in the digital domain by a software algorithm, as part of a suite of microscope image processing techniques. Deconvolution is also practical to sharpen images that suffer from fast motion or jiggles during capturing. Early Hubble Space Telescope images were distorted by a flawed mirror and were sharpened by deconvolution."
It is about the same as me telling folks that they need to personally perform surgery on their spouse to reduce the spouse's back pain.
Wilt, I know what deconvolution is. I used to teach that stuff at the Woods Hole summer courses. Such deconvolution isn't, to the best of my knowledge, embedded in the tools most photographers use. ImageJ does it, and some of the software provided with microscopes (I'm most familiar with microscopy) can do deconvolution. As the math is all the same, I've no doubt there is similar software for astrophotography and radio.
Also, you should cite your sources. You copied that text from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org …eating%20clearer%20images.
In that source, I'm curious about the mention of fluorescence microscopy using "blind deconvolution" It would work, but we would measure the point spread function of a microscope optical train using fluorescent beads. Here's an example: https://www.ibiology.org …-a-point-spread-function/
